Edroso v.

Sablan
G.R. No. 6878, September 13, 1913

FACTS:

Marcelina Edroso was married to Victoriano Sablan until his death on September 22,
1882. In this marriage they had a son named Pedro who at his fathers death inherited
the two said parcels. Pedro also died on July 15, 1902, unmarried and without issue and
by this decease the two parcels of land passed through inheritance to his mother,
Marcelina Edroso. Hence the hereditary title whereupon is based the application for
registration of her ownership.

Two legitimate brothers of VictorianoSablan that is, two uncles german of Pedro
Sablan appeared in the case to oppose the registration, claiming one of two things:
Either that the registration be denied, or that if granted to her the right reserved by law
to the opponents be recorded in the registration of each parcel.

The Court of Land Registration denied the registration.

Registration was denied because the trial court held that the parcels of land in question
partake of the nature of property required by law to be reserved and that in such a case
application could only be presented jointly in the names of the mother and the said two
uncles of Pedro Sablan.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Land Registration erred in denying the registration of the
reservable properties by reservista, Edroso.

RULING:

YES. The Court held that applicant is entitled to register in her own name the
two parcels of land which are the subject matter of the applicants, recording in
the registration the right required by the law to be reserved to either or both of
the opponents, Pablo Sablan and Basilio Sablan, should they survive her.

The reservista has all the rights inherent in ownership, he can use, enjoy, dispose of and
recover it; and if, in addition to usufructuary, he is in fact and in law the real owner and
can alienate it, although under a condition.

The ascendants who inherits from descendants, whether by the latters wish or by
operation of law, requires the inheritance by virtue of a title perfectly
transferring absolute ownership. All the attributes of the right of ownership belong to
him exclusively use, enjoyment, disposal and recovery.

During the whole period between the constitution in legal form of the right required by
law to be reserved and the extinction thereof, the relatives within the third degree, after
the right that in their turn may pertain to them has been assured, have only an
expectation, and therefore they do not even have the capacity to transmit
that expectation to their heirs.

Edroso vs. Sablan

1. The reservistas right over the reserved property is one of ownership.

2. The ownership is subject to a resolutory condition, i.e. the existence of reservatarios at the time of
the reservistas death.
3. The right of ownership is alienable, but subject to the same resolutory condition.
4. The reservistas right of ownership is registrable.

The conclusion is that the person required by article 811 to reserve the right has, beyond any doubt at
all, the rights of use and usufruct. He has, moreover, for the reasons set forth, the legal title and
dominion, although under a condition subsequent. Clearly he has, under an express provision of the law,
the right to dispose of the property reserved, and to dispose of is to alienate, although under a
condition. He has the right to recover it, because he is the one who possesses or should possess it and
have title to it, although a limited and revocable one. In a word, the legal title and dominion, even
though under a condition, reside in him while he lives. After the right required by law to be reserved has
been assured, he can do anything that a genuine owner can do.
On the other hand, the relatives within the third degree in whose favor the right is reserved cannot
dispose of the property, first because it is no way, either actually, constructively or formally, in their
possession; and, moreover, because they have no title of ownership or of fee simple which they can
transmit to another, on the hypothesis that only when the person who must reserve the right should die
before them will they acquire it, thus creating a fee simple, and only then will they take their place in
the succession of the descendant of whom they are relatives within the third degree, that is to say, a
second contingent place in said legitimate succession in the fashion of aspirants to a possible future
legacy.
PADURA vs BALDOVINO

G.R. No. L-11960 December 27, 1958

FACTS

Agustin Padura contracted two marriages during his lifetime. With his first wife Gervacia Landig, hehad
one child, Manuel Padura. With the second wife, Benita Garing, he had two children, Fortunato
andCandelaria Padura. Agustin died on Apr 26, 1908, leaving a last will and testament, duly probated,
whereinhe bequeathed his properties among his three children and his surviving spouse, Benita
Garing.Fortunato was adjudicated four parcels of land. He died unmarried on May 28, 1908, without
havingexecuted a will; and not having any issue, the parcels of land were inherited exclusively by his
motherBenita. Benita was issued a Torrens Certificate of Title in her name, subject to the condition that
theproperties were reservable in favor of relatives within the third degree belonging to the line from
which saidproperty came.On Aug 26, 1934, Candelaria died, leaving as her heirs her four legitimate
children: Cristeta,Melania, Anicia, and Pablo Baldovino (Oppositors-appellants). On Oct 6, 1940, Manuel
also died, survivedby his legitimate children Dionisia, Felisa, Flora, Cornelio, Francisco, Juana, and
Severino Padura(Petitioners-appellees) Upon the death of Benita (the reservista) on Oct 15, 1952, the
heirs took possessionof the reservable properties. CFI Laguna declared the children of Manuel and
Candelaria to be the rightfulreservees, and as such, entitled to the reservable properties (the original
reservees, Candelaria and Manuel,having predeceased the reservista)The Baldovino heirs filed a petition
seeking to have the properties partitioned, such that one-half beadjudicated to them, and the other half
to the appellees, allegedly on the basis that they inherited by right ofrepresentation from their
respective parents, the original reservees.Padura heirs opposed, maintaining that they should all be
deemed as inheriting in their own right,under which, they claim, each should have an equal share.(In
essence, the Baldovino heirs, who are whole blood relatives of the reservista, were contending that
theyshould get more than their half-blood relatives, the Padura heirs. They anchor their claim on Articles
1006and 1008 of the Civil Code)

RTC RULING

Declared all the reservees, without di

stinction, co

-owners, pro-indiviso, in equal shares of the

parcels of land.

ISSUE

WON the reserved properties should, as the trial court held, be apportioned among the heirs equally.
HELD

NO.The nephews of the whole blood should take a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the
half blood.The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the reservable
property to thethird degree relatives belonging to the line from which the property originally came, and
avoid its beingdissipated into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant (reservista). Article 891 of
the Code provides:

ART 891. The ascendant who inherits from his descendant any property which the latter may haveacqui
red by gratuitous title from another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property
as he may have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third degree
and who belong to the line from which said property came.

The purpose of the reserva troncal is accomplished once the property has devolved to the
specifiedrelatives of the line of origin. But from this time on, there is no further occasion for its
application. In therelations between one reservatario and another of the same degree, there is no call
for applying Art 891 anylonger; the respective share of each in the reversionary property should be
governed by the ordinary rules ofinterstate succession.Florentino v Florentino (as restated in the case):
upon the death of the ascendant reservista, thereservable property should pass, not to all the
reservatorios as a class, but only to those nearest in degree tothe descendant (prepositus), excluding
those reservatarios of more remote degree... And within the thirddegree of relationship from the
descendant (prepositus), the right of representation operates in favor ofnephews.Proximity of degree
and right of representation are basic principles of ordinary intestate succession; so isthe rule that whole
blood brothers and nephews are entitled to share double that of brothers and nephews ofhalf-blood. If
in determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, proximity of degree and the right
ofrepresentation of nephews are made to aply, the rule of double share for immedaite collaterals of the
wholeblood should likewise be operative.In other words,

The reserva troncal is a special rule designed primarily to assure the return of the reservable property to
the third degree relatives belonging to the line from which the property originally came, and avoid its
being dissipated into and by the relatives of the inheriting ascendant.
The reserva merely determines the group of relatives to whom the property should be returned; but
within that group the individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of
ordinary intestate succession, since Article 891 does not specify otherwise. (RFB: Those reservatarios
nearer in degree to the prepositus will exclude the more remotely related.)